P. v. A2B Cargo Logistics, Inc. et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: #2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Plaintiff J. Y. P. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1406(a). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) shall be DENIED AS MOOT. A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 4/26/21. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
J.Y.P. by way of GREGORY PEET,
Plaintiff,
V.

A2B CARGO LOGISTICS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:21-CV-65 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon its own motion. On April 19, 2021, pro se plaintiff
Gregory Peet, a Missouri resident, filed a complaint in this Court on behalf of J.Y.P., an alleged
minor child, against A2B Cargo Logistics, Inc. and A2B Cargo, Inc. (also "A2B Cargo
defendants"), and Coleman Strachman. Plaintiff invokes this Court's diversity jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and he has filed a motion seeking leave to proceed informa pauperis.
All of plaintiffs claims arise from a 2019 motor vehicle accident that occurred in
Kentucky. Plaintiff alleges the accident was caused by Coleman Strachman while he was driving
a tractor-trailer truck in the course of his duties as an employee of the A2B Cargo defendants.
Plaintiff alleges that minor child J.Y.P., a resident of Sikeston, Missouri, was a passenger in a
motor vehicle headed eastbound on US 24 near mile marker 51. 7 5 in Kuttawa, Kentucky. Plaintiff
avers the A2B Cargo defendants are corporations domiciled in Illinois, and he avers Coleman
Strachman is an individual domiciled in North Carolina.
An action of this type may be brought only in: (1) a judicial district where any defendant
resides, if all defendants reside in the same State; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part
of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; or (3) a judicial district in which any
defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. 28

U.S.C. § 139l(b). In this action, no defendant resides in this judicial district, none of the events
giving rise to plaintiff's claims occurred here, and there is more than one district in which this
action may otherwise be brought. Accordingly, the Court concludes none of the requirements of§
1391(b) are present in this judicial district, and the instant case therefore lays venue in the wrong
district.
Pursuant to statute, "[t]he district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in
' the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case
to any district or division in which it could have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Here, as
noted above, there is more than one district in which this action may be brought. The claims alleged
in the complaint appear serious, and it cannot .be said it is in the best interests of justice for this
Court to choose one of them and order the case transferred there. Doing so would serve only to
deprive plaintiff of the choice of judicial district, and potentially force him to litigate in a district
he finds inconvenient. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this action at this time, without
prejudice, due to improper venue. Nothing in this Memorandum and Order shall be construed as
an opinion concerning the merits of plaintiffs claims, nor shall it be construed as precluding
plaintiff from filing this action in a judicial district where venue is proper.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 2) shall be DENIED AS MOOT.
A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
Dated this

)2.!J

-&

day of April, 2021.

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3